Eisspeedway

Talk:Eagle Forum

Former good article nomineeEagle Forum was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed


Controversies Section

Surely there must be some controversies we can dig up on this group. Let's find some evidence of hate speech, vitriolic rhetorical, and examples of bigotry. I am sure the stuff exists, we just need to dig it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.202.86 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:SOAP Roger (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what if they don't hate anybody? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't hate anybody, that should be in the article. If they do, it should be in the article. Calling for sources for or against common assertions is NOT WP:SOAP. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Conservapedia charged Wikipedia with liberal bias - pffft

Secular content is not biased. Conservapedia, on the other hand, uses outright fundamentalist bias to attack Wikipedia. How Americancentric can you be to deem Wikipedia biased for including substitutions of labor with labour. And if Wikipedia uses censorship too much, what can defend Conservapedia's prevention of even creating an account. Fundamentalists need to cry somewhere else, Wikipedia is a home of secular objectivity. 68.163.32.207 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little odd that the example given of "bias" is so laughably minor compared to the fact that the site declares on its front page that faith is unique to Christianity, contains articles presenting creationism as fact, has statements of opinion directly in the summary of articles, and so on. I get that it might be a parody of criticism of bias at wikipedia (their examples are indeed pretty laughable), but uncyclopedia is the place for parody.

The premise behind it is equally laughable. Given that any Wikipedia editor, if challenged, will have to justify their neutrality with logical arguments, Conservapedia is essentially saying that logic has a liberal bias... Baggabagga 20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that talk pages are not for general discussions but for discussing ways to improve articles. That said, I will be slightly hypocritical and make a very brief comment- one could argue that Wikipedia is so biased with liberalism that what passes for logic and sourcing on Wikipedia is skewed. JoshuaZ 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting the scientific process and rejecting scripture as a source doesn't equal liberalism. It equals secularism, and there are plenty of secular conservatives. Perhaps we should have a section which highlights the disparity between Conservapedia's conservatism and international conservatism? I'm not sure about this, since they openly proclaim to be America-centric. Might be redundant. Kronix1986 11:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they're in a DOS attack or just can't deal with the load. Also, the divided government article mentions how Clinton only experienced surpluses/balanced budget with a Republican-controlled House but not the record deficits experienced during Ronald Reagan's administration where the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Tomhormby 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon guys, it's a phenomenon now! Has to be time to bring back the old Conservapedia article. Undelete, I say (58.6.94.72 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)matt)[reply]

There is an ongoing deletion review. Look at WP:DRV. JoshuaZ 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The present article seems misleading to me, as it does not adequately describe Conservapedia. --Theosch 07:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why does conservapedia redirect here? i came here looking for info. i want to know about it's origins, who's sponsoring it, criticisms, etc. there's over a quarter million hits for 'conservapedia' on google, yet barely two sentences about it on wikipedia. this is a notable site, why is wikipedia lagging behind on covering it? 74.101.213.92 13:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Conservapedia needs its own article a.s.a.p. The situation has moved on since the AfD in December. There's little sense in a redirect here with information about Conservapedia beginning to clog up this article. Bondegezou 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then say so at the DRV. This is not the forum. JoshuaZ 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dammit, they took down their wiki entry on the tree octopus :( 68.33.185.185 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs its own article. Their page on 'liberal' is humourous though. (Elephant53 01:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've just looked at the Wikipedia page on 'liberal' and that isn't very good either. (Elephant53 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This should maybe go on the Conservapedia page when it goes up: its entry on Wikipedia complains: "The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American." Hello? Most people are in fact not American... --Hugh7 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research stack for expanding the article

- Kelly Ramsey 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these links aren't from reliable sources. I think we should be more careful, not less, about what we say of organisations critical of wikipedia. Andjam 04:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I stuck them on the talk page, not the article, as starting points for research. (No sense keeping the search engine trawl all to myself, gee whiz.) We are certainly in agreement that this organization requires extra-scrupulous adherence to policies - which is good, because it's looking like the more of us who are here reverting the unverified outbursts, the better. - Kelly Ramsey 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionist? Needs reliable sources

Hmm on a related note. Looking at this article's history, the "dominionist" label was apparently a point of contention recently. It was, too, for the Free Congress Foundation article. As far as Eagle Forum is concerned, there currently isn't any documentation with reliable sources. The main source for the categorization, TheocracyWatch, is another activist group so it really doesn't qualify.

I'm taking off the "dominionism" template until this article has proper verification for the label. - Kelly Ramsey 05:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic rank

In this edit, a user changed the traffic rank from ~10,000 to being in the 500,000s. The daily traffic was close to 10,000 (the bit in the graph), but the 500,000s seems to be the overall (longer term) rank. Oh, the joys of original research! Andjam 23:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Some comments refractored to BJAODN) Andjam 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sudden surge is notable. How is it original research? It just quotes Alexa. Paul Studier 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia article

With the recent coverage in Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0%2C72818-0.html?tw=wn_index_3) and New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/02/conservative-rival-for-wikipedia.html) as well as the attention all over the various blogs, at what point does conservapedia actually reach enough notoriety to have an article and not simply a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it? Tmtoulouse 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed. I suggest you go to WP:DRV and scroll down to the discussion. JoshuaZ 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I just noticed that after I posted here. I commented there.Tmtoulouse 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV???

look people! I just copied exactly word for word what a wikipedia definition says and what a conservapedia definition says???...how in the hell...is that POV?...its showing the differences...and conservapedians should be proud of their definitions! why would you attempt to hide me presenting them on this page?...anyways Im being careful in the future, it seems that I will indeed go to Hell if i ever dare to believe dinosaur bones are older than 6,000 years. What happens to me if I disagree with "dinosaurs still roam the earth" and that they were all "vegetarians"...??? 83.78.181.214 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....aaaahhhhggggg......im being eaten by a Tyranosaurus!!!...help conservapedians... help help!!!...no...no wait...its just my african violets and orchids it is eating!!!...phew!...that was a close one...(i always wondered about those large teeth, they seem to work really well on getting the nectar out of the orchids!) 83.78.181.214 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But its a great thing!!!

"I'm personally really pleased in conservapedia, it will prove very interesting, perhaps at times even entertaining, and it will be nice to see how the conservapedians think of and view the world...as you know what conservapedians?...I have a distinctly right wing streak in me sometimes, and it can prove very useful to have such knowledge over how people are thinking...very useful..and while i may lean rightwards at times, yet still think this business of 6000 year old dinosaur bones is absolute rubbish, its very useful to know how y'all think!!!...and anyways Im sure that you may eventually have some definitions perhaps better than wikipedia on certain subjects, we will at least get all the dirt on the democrats yes?, I suppose we next need a "liberalapedia" so we can see all the dirt on the republicans also without it being blocked and erased out 83.78.181.214 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Irony when this guy actually went to Conservapedia he became depressed, athiest, and democratic haha

blocking by wikipedia conservapedians

well I just want to state that I have been immediately blanked out for showing the definitions from wikipedia vrs conservapedia, copied word for word, if someone wants to try and state wikipedia has a "liberal" bias then try editing on this page! and you might change your mind!!!...83.78.181.214 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So i am proposing something!!!..We really do start a liberalapedia, we selectively block out editors who dont uphold our standards, we take instead of just minor facts compatible with american religious extremists from current wikipedia like conservapedia does, we instead take everything currently in wikipedia, and go from there working with that and slowly but surely editing to our exact preferences, yet we stay very close to neutral still...we would want to stay very neutral still, yet eliminate all conservative bias, and we load up the trash on republicans, yet careful to stay neutral, and only accurate trash, if its speculation we state it being speculation, we really could perhaps outdo wikipedia if we stuck to accuracy yet just flushed out the conservative bias in it, and we'd trash democrats when they deserved trashing, there would be far less time taken up in edit wars, the wars could be solved more peacefully and harmoniously and with consensus, vandals would have no access, no time taken up with minor anonymous vandals, you have a try out period and can be quickly blocked if you arent compatible, it would be a closed community of editors, yet open for new ones to try if they showed good editing skills compatible with the rest, wed need some editors highly critical to cruise around it to make sure we didnt go overboard and maintained the best internet encylopedia there is...yet really we wouldnt want a liberal bias, so we wouldnt call it liberalapedia, wed just want a very accurate document with no room for conservative bias, just the input of moderates, the center, and slightly left, the hard left we could let have their say which they dont on wikipedia, yet wed clearly state "the left feels" when they said something...we could call it perhaps "accupedia"..for accuracy..or perhaps "realpedia" 83.78.181.214 03:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuaz does not have a bias towards conservapedia, and he is right, the appropriate thing to do is to wait for the results of the DRV.Tmtoulouse 03:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might, I have been editing there. I doubt it though. I do however intend when we have an article on Conservapedia to propose all my non-trivial changes on the talk pages before implementing them. JoshuaZ 03:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this was joshuaz earlier on this talk page "one could argue that Wikipedia is so biased with liberalism that what passes for logic and sourcing on Wikipedia is skewed."...83.78.181.214 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point made was that it was a logically consistent respone that Conservapedia could make to Baggabagga. Hence the "one could." I don't endorse the argument at all (and in fact if you look at for example here you will see my arguing strongly against such a viewpoint. JoshuaZ 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i thought that might have been the case, thanks for clearing that up...83.78.181.214 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your attempts with the evolution section on conservapedia, good luck! Not to clutter up this talk page with too much unrelated information, but I am sure your edits to the page here will be fine, I have only recently started contributing to wikipedia but have consistently been impressed with your integrity and contributions on the articles that I have followed through my time lurking. Tmtoulouse 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, Im not supporting the article on the eagle review be deleted, we need an article on conservapedia, it needs to be explained what it is by those from the wikipedia forum, just like the conservapedians explain on their site their view of wikipedia, the only difference is that on the wikipedia site we have a broad range of editors right, left, and middle commenting & that can ruthlessly delete if they dont like something, so i could never negatively ramble on about conservapedia in the article itself, the conservative wikipedia editors would remove it...83.78.181.214 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV is not about deleting the Eagle Forum article, there was an entry on conservapedia a while ago but it was deleted because of a lack of notoriety. With the recent press coverage and discussion it should now probably be undeleted. That is what the discussion is about. Scroll up to under my heading Conservapedia Article and follow Joshuaz's instructions and comment on your support for undeleting the article on conservapedia. Tmtoulouse 03:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyways like I say its good this conservapedia...i think its a good idea, segregation is the answer, people on the radical right need their own forum, they are wasting their own time and also the majority of wikipedians' time in ridiculous edit wars...wikipedia needs to be a highly accurate document, we dont need crazies telling people they will go to hell if they dont believe dinosaur bones are only 6,000 years old or less and that the dinosaurs were all vegetarians and walk the earth to this day! plus their arguments about being a "christian" encyclopedia are rubbish! Ill betcha the vast majority of editors on english wikipedia are christian! some may not be so psycho extremist, but they are still christians! conservapedia should set up their operations base in afghanistan next to the taliban religious extremists! I'll betcha they could come together on an encyclopedia!...anyways!...segregation is the answer!!!...(sorry for my right wing bias!, i tend sometimes to be a right wing elitest exclusionist! after all i tested out 99.9 percentile on my SATs, 1 per 1000!...lucky for y'all i have a "soft leftie" compassion for the rest of you!) 83.78.181.214 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and PS! dont waste ur time wikipedians on conservapedia! if you have any rationality and common sense you will not waste your time...let them say what they want! dont bug them! their whole idea is so they can have their say without meddling from the people not on the hard right. respect their wishes!. lets see just what kind of encyclopedia they put out!..we already know what an encylopedia looks like with people from all sides and mainly moderates (mostly from the united states) editing it!...83.78.181.214 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and!!! PS to the conservapedians! Jesus was just about the biggest leftie that ever walked this planet! All you have to do is read a few lines to figure that out! He would be so far left of the american democrats!!! Im not trying to convert you to be left or right! covert yourselves I say!...just get real! Jesus was a leftie liberal anti-imperialist! He was the radical left of his day and age, and undoubtledly would be today as well. 83.78.181.214 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is truly amazing! More so than Jesus "walking on water"..is that the hard right in america can use a document put out by the radical left: The New Testament for their ends and purposes...its the ultimate example of doublespeak 83.78.181.214 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first article I looked at was about James I, described as a confirmed bachelor, not sure what that is about as he was married to Anne of Denmark and had at 3 children including Charles I. Very strange

Even better is the article on Charles I himself: "Charles I was born November 19, 1600 and died January 30, 1649. He became king of England and Ireland in 1625 and did much to worsen the conflicts between the king and Parliament throughout his rein [sic]." I suppose that's one way of putting it.Bedesboy 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Conservapedia article

I've started a new draft based on reliable sources - User:JoshuaZ/Conservapedia so we can be ready to stick it into the page when the DRV closes. Feel free to edit it. JoshuaZ 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spruced up the article, included more examples of biases, corrected spelling errors and added more sources. It should be made clear in the final draft that Conservapedia by its very nature is biased, since its stated aim is to correct the perceived liberal, anti-Christian, anti-American bias on Wikipedia. They do not strive for neutrality. Kronix1986 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace draft moved to article space. Give thought to how much content should be here now that there is an article. GRBerry 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global View of "conservatism"

I'm wondering if this article needs to stress that Conservapedia is "conservative" only in a single, rather narrow American sense of the word? I'm in the UK, I'm moderately Conservative by UK standards and I intend to vote for the Conservative Party in the next election. I don't really perceive WP as having a liberal bias, and I think most of the material in Conservapedia is laughable (I love their entry on France: "A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol [sic] is Paris, France [sic], which was founded in the Middle Ages" - that's the whole entry). However, blithely associating Conservapedia with a "conservative" viewpoint tars me, other European conservatives, and intelligent American conservatives with the same brush as these ridiculous hillbillies. I know that's basically the fault of the site's creators for calling it Conservapedia, but I think we need to define the type of "conservatism" that's implied in the name. I don't particularly want to be associated with a bunch of bible-thumping rednecks, thanks very much. Bedesboy 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Party in Australia is actually called the Liberal Party. Choke on that if you will! Tabletop 08:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a hillbilly & redneck, I take offense at being lumped in with religious fanatics. I might have junk appliances in my yard, but I've never thumped a Bible.

Quite frankly I find it appalling that they're calling themselves the "conservapedia." Conservatives in the US have a bad enough name as is. As a conservative myself, I am horrified to be included with such radical and misinformed Christian viewpoints.

well...then talk some sense into these people!...the only ones going to be able to get these people to come to a little more sanity are fellow conservatives not so whacko!...they wont listen to anybody else! It seems to me up till now they have been encouraged instead of discouraged by the moderate sane conservatives...83.78.144.13 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing onto Conservapedia

I would like to add some constructive pages and fix a spelling error (not of the -our -or kind) but Conservapedia does not appear to have a Create Account option? Help needed please.

Tabletop 08:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a function for creating accounts. So much for "openness" from our conservative friends? --Sumple (Talk) 13:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Re-Do this article

There is now a separate article on conservapedia so most of that information can be removed from here which doesn't leave much left. The references are blank and not much information about "Eagle Forum" lets see what sources we can find and get something worth having here. Tmtoulouse 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article text is clear
2. Factually accurate?: Very well cited, seems to all be factual
3. Broad in coverage?: This article doesn't have enough breadth.

On reading it, I was left with a multitude of unanswered questions. Below are a few of them as a guide on what could be added:

The Eagle Forum is almost certainly a controversial organisation, due to it's far right wing views. Why is there nothing about confrontations with people on the other side of politics? - Eagle forum, and their founder, make numerous appearances on www.rightwingwatch.org

How is the organisation linked to the church? - It seems there is a link since in creating Conservapedia they were concerned that Wikipedia was anti-Christian.

History Section

What is the Education and Legal Defense Fund used for? What/who's legal problems are defended using the fund?

What does PAC stand for? (as in Eagle Forum PAC). Who have been their main & most controversial targets for donations?

Organisation Section

There is no mention of the structure of the organisation. Are there any full time employees? What are the offices for? Is there any significance to the location of the offices.

Do members pay a fee? How much? How do they raise other cash?

Are non-caucasians permitted to be members/leaders? Why are almost all of the state leaders women? What are the demographics and geographics of the members?

Scope of Activities section

This section lists a number of issues in which the Eagle Forum is involved, but there is no detail of how they are involved. Who/how/where do they lobby? How much influence do they exert?

Anti-Evolution/pro-Creationism and anti-conscription could added to the list.

4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be reasonably neutral
5. Article stability?
6. Images?: This article contains no pictures - It would be good to have either a photo of the leader of the Eagle Forum, and/or it's eagle symbol on the page.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --Ozhiker 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism

Please stop putting unsourced allegations about Dominionism into the article. They are false. The Eagle Forum views can be found on its web site. Roger 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are source, I think you need to stop editing the article and work on gaining consensus as you have an obvious conflict of interest that is going against the current consensus. Tmtoulouse 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus that Eagle Forum is Dominionist. There is not even any source that says that Eagle Forum is Dominionist. You and FeloniousMonk are vandalizing the page by putting in false and unsourced claims. Roger 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are sourced, come back when you have read WP:AGF and WP:COI. Tmtoulouse 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus plays no role here for the inclusion; as long as reliable and notable sources say Eagle Forum is associated with Dominionism, it will remain in the article. Also, you were already blocked once recently for personal attacks like this one, I suggest you rethink your method. Returning to revert several times a day is called gaming the 3RR system, and likely to result in another block if you continue. FeloniousMonk 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I normally assume that other editors have good faith. In the case of FeloniousMonk, the majority of his edits that I have seen are both false and malicious. In this example, he insists on saying that Eagle Forum is Dominionist, even tho it is not, and no source says that it is. Roger 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two external links currently being used to make this the identification. In the first I cannot find any mention of Eagle Forum; would Tmtoulouse or FM please quote the sentence you think is relevant here? The second describes Eagle Forum as a "Christian Right advocacy group". Unless you are claiming that Christian Right = Dominionism, then I don't see a connection here either. Further, the association should be attributed to Chris Hedges, the author of the second article, who is not necessarily speaking even for TheocracyWatch (who published the article), much less CRESP (which only provides infrastructure for TW) or Cornell University. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to find a version that states the situation fairly and accurately, I've made some significant changes to the section under discussion here. My reasoning for each step is detailed in each edit summary, and I would appreciate it if anyone critical of my edits would address my arguments either here or in their own summaries. Thanks. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Schlafly's request, I am posting this here:

User:Schlafly has repeatedly added a statement to the effect that cited sources in the "Criticism" section do not actually say that EF is Dominionist.[1] While this is true, it is not relevant, as the text does not say that they do. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole section of about 150 words with the header "Criticism". It is really just some cites to some political web sites that hardly offer any criticism of Eagle Forum at all. They just have some vague and indirect associations with Dominionism. There does not seem to be any point to the paragraph, except to imply that Eagle Forum is Dominionist. I would just remove the whole paragraph, but I am not doing so because of my alleged conflict of interest. But if the paragraph is going to try to connect Eagle Forum with Dominionism, then it ought to say that Eagle Forum itself is not actually Dominionist. Roger (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section is accurate and well sourced. You've utterly failed to make a case that it isn't. Isn't it about time you stop disrupting this article, you've been edit warring and ignoring WP:COI here since mid-October. Enough is enough. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FeloniousMonk, you are the one with a Dominionist ax to grind. Do you want to address my comments? Roger (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to report what reliable sources say, not to judge whether they're right. I know that both of you have had Dominionism on your minds for a long time, but the section has much less emphasis on Dominionism than it used to, so perhaps you can look at it again in that light.
Roger, if you don't like this paragraph (and you're perfectly entitled to disagree with what the sources say), I think the proper remedy is to look for reliable sources that say something different. An RS that directly rebuts this criticism could properly be included in this section. An RS that more generally praises EF could find a place elsewhere in the article (if there's a "Criticism" section, then why not?). Frankly, I'm surprised that no one has put RS's into a "Criticism" section on the TheocracyWatch page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I had in mind. Whether EF is or is not Dominionist is an unverifiable opinion, so such statements should not be stated as facts but given as a source's opinion (if not directly as a quote). If you want to quote something from the EF website (such as a denial of Dominionism), I encourage you to do so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, if you want to get this settled to your satisfaction, your best approach is to find a reliable source you can quote that says, in so many words, that Eagle Forum is not dominionist. If there is a statement to this effect published somewhere on the Eagle Forum website, it would IMHO be highly appropriate to include that in this Wikipedia article. If there is not--and a Google search on "site:www.eagleforum.org dominionist" doesn't find anything--and if you have contacts in Eagle Forum who are concerned about the Wikipedia article, then someone ought to draft something addressing the issue and publish it on the Eagle Forum site. If possible, the statement should be clearly identifiable as having been made by someone who speaks for the Eagle Forum.

I would strongly support a brief summary of, and a link to any such statement.

If you are seriously interested in achieving a change in the content of the article, I'm about 95% sure that would work.

Simply deleting well-sourced statements you disagree with, or adding your own unsourced statements, probably won't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added: "None of these sources actually says that Eagle Forum is dominionist." I would suggest removing the stuff on theocracy and dominionism. Roger (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this debate referenced on Conservapedia (item #52 to be exact) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor referencing

The references in this article are of poor quality - URL's are not enough, full references should be provided, possibly using Template:Cite web.

Many of the references do not properly match the sentence or phrase they are attached to:

  • Ref #3) [2] doesn't mention the phrase 'socially conservative'
  • Ref #4) [3] doesn't mention the phrase 'anti-feminist'
  • Ref #7) [4] doesn't mention specific ages
  • Ref #8) [5] is an old link, the replacement [6] doesn't specifically mention who Eagle Forum Collegians is aimed at
  • Ref #10) [7] does not use the quoted phrase 'continuing education'
  • Ref #11) [8] is not available to most web users without payment
  • Ref #12) [9] refers to 'Phyllis Schlafly's Stop ERA organisation' but does not specifically say that it was she who founded it.
  • Ref #14) [10] just points to tax info for charities - it should point to the specific charity information page for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund.
  • Ref #16) [11] says the eagle forum contributes to right wing Campaigns, not Candidates as mentioned in the article. Campaigns suggest contributions need not involve a particular candidate
  • Ref #21) [12] does not reference the quote to which it is attached.

--Ozhiker (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section says that Eagle Forum has been criticized for its views. I don't think that this is notable, as all political organizations get criticized for their views. But if this article is going to have a Criticism section, then it should list some actual Eagle Forum views, and list some people who have actually criticized those views. The article does not. It lists some obscure essays by people who are unhappy about Dominionism, but nowhere does any of those sources say that Dominionism is an Eagle Forum view. This nonsense does not belong. Elstong (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do clearly link Eagle Forum with critics who partially criticize it and it's founder for DOminionism. The rest of your argument that "all political organizations get criticized" isn't going to get the section removed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Eagle Forum support Dominionism? For this to be useful, it should have some quote from Eagle Forum or from a reliable source that documents Eagle Forum support for Dominionism. But none of the references actually says that Eagle Forum has any Dominionist views. None of them is an objective source. And none of them actually criticizes some Eagle Forum view.
TheocracyWatch quotes Glenn Scherer saying that Eagle Forum has rated some US Senators differently from environmentalist groups. Mother Jones said that Eagle Forum has supported a Republican group, and some of those Republicans had once supported Pat Robertson. That is very far removed from Eagle Forum supporting Dominionism. If Eagle Forum says that environmentalism is contrary to the Bible, or if Eagle Forum supported Pat Robertson for president, then those things might be notable and criticism of those views might be notable. But I cannot find anything like that in any of the references. Unless someone finds some better references, the paragraph should be removed. Elstong (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was wrong with my edits? I clarified what the references say. Please explain your changes. Elstong (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because your edits were stylistically juvenile, non-encyclopedic, original synthesis commentary on the sources no the article subject. Not to mention far form NPOV. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominionism and Glenn Scherer

For your information,

Currently, there are four sources to support saying Eagle Forum is a dominionist organization.

One is an article by Glenn Scherer. The Godly Must Be Crazy:

Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Three others are links from TheocracyWatch's website. They all take the numbers that Glenn Scherer compiled to group Eagle Forum with the Christian Coalition and the Family Resource Council:

Congressional scorecards from organizations such as the Christian Coalition, and the Family Research Council also illustrate the strength of dominionists in Congress. Click here to view Senate Congressional scorecards from those three organizations as compared to the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental groups. You'll see an almost perfect inverse correlation -- the higher the scores from dominionist groups, the lower the scores on the environment. (The tables in the above link were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004 ...)
  • Note: The page now does not mention "Eagle Forum", but it still says "three" (as opposed to "two") organizations, and the spreadsheet it links to still has Eagle Forum in a column.
To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004.)
Forty-five Senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives earned between an 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian Right advocacy groups - The Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unflattering image?

I am not in sympathy with Eagle Forum or with Phyllis Schlafly, yet at my first glance at the image chosen my instant reaction was that it was an unflattering image. So I did a quick Google image search for "phyllis schafly" and turned up the image used in the article, but also many far more attractive-looking ones. The first Google Image hit, for example, was

http://www.patrolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/schlafly+phyllis.jpg

This image does not look phony or airbrushed, and yet her smile makes her look far more attractive.

I don't know what Wikipedia policy is or could possibly be with regard to image selection, and I understand the issues with finding free images, but I really have a problem with the image that's in the article now. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-life" description

An editor reverted my change from "The organization is [[pro-life]]" to "The organization is [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion|opposed to the legalization of abortion]]", commenting "this is how they self-describe; no consensus for this change". I'm aware of no policy that requires WP to use self-descriptions; WP:ABOUTSELF states that "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" with caveats (emphasis mine), but WP:NPOV requires that WP "Prefer non-judgmental language". The articles on abortion advocacy are actually titled "Opposition to the legalization of abortion" and "Support for the legalization of abortion" for NPOV, and articles that link to them should do the same. AV3000 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is MOS:IDENTITY. The article titles you cited fall unser WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any event "pro-life" is commonly used in reliable sources and consequently not POV and certainly not "judgmental".– Lionel (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Psssst. In case you haven't heard--per ArbCom "pro-life" is coming up for a vote again--and if I were you I wouldn't put any money on "opposition to the I wish I could rememeber oh yeah legalization of now what was that abortion pro-choice oh why is this title so long" title. – Lionel (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, not a policy, that explicitly states it is trumped by WP:NPOV: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as ... Neutral point of view". It also says "When there is no dispute, ... the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself"; there is obviously a dispute. (WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant because the article being linked with a pipe rename is an integral part of the text.) Not aware of the related ArbCom case; link please? AV3000 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANTI ISLAM AGENCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4606:4C00:4CD0:9C0B:47F1:4B18 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANTI ISLAM AGENCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4606:4C00:4CD0:9C0B:47F1:4B18 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eagle_Forum